Search This Blog

Without the right to communicate and democratisation of communication, the right to life, liberty, freedom of speech and expression is meaningless.It attempts to keep track of traditional media, offline media and digital media that faces the onslaught of monopolistic tendencies and is wary of localisation of media. It is part of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) For Details: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mediavigil/info

Interesting disclosure about 1962 war between India and China

Note: There is circumstantial and documentary evidence that suggests that Jawahar Lal Nehru was either taking instructions from UK based politicians or was reporting to them. Nehru paid his first and the last visit to China in October 1954 after its 1949 revolution. He was there from October 15- 19, 1954, when he was in China after a stopover in Vietnam. Nehru had a long meeting with Mao Tse-tung. Nehru wrote a top-secret note on his visit to China on November 11, 1954. Nehru had sent a copy of his top-secret note to Winston Churchill, the UK Prime Minister which was declassified at the expiry of 30 years and is available in Britain’s Public Records Office. In India, it was published first in Nehru’s Letters to Chief Ministers first and then in the Selected Works in the 1990s.

Neville Maxwell who outed the Henderson Brooks report has another disclosure in The Times of India.
A "couple of years ago I made the text available to several major
Indian papers on condition they didn't disclose their source, but none
of them would publish it, so by this time I had to conclude that if I
didn't do it myself it might never see the light of day." So he put it
up on his website. But he is mum as to which newspapers.

It wasn't China, but Nehru who declared 1962 war: Australian journalist Neville MaxwellTwo weeks ago, the Australian journalist Neville Maxwell finally
made part of the Henderson Brooks report public, by putting it up on
his blog. The report was an internal Indian Army enquiry into its rout
in the 1962 war with China — Maxwell was the New Delhi correspondent for
The Times, London, at the time — but in the 51 years since the report
was written up by Lt Gen Henderson Brooks and Brig PS Bhagat, successive
Indian governments have refused to make it public. Only two copies of
the report were thought to be in existence, although there was never any
doubt that Maxwell had had access to the report for his 1970 book
India's China War quoted extensively from it. In his first interview to
the Indian media since he made the report public, the now 88-year-old
Maxwell tells Parakram Rautela that he had been trying to make the
report public for years but that nobody would publish it. He adds that
he was only able to get hold of Volume I of the report, minus 45 pages,
and that he never laid eyes on Volume II. And of course he still blames
Nehru for the war, not the Chinese. Excerpts:

Q: You suggest India's official account of the cause of the 1962 border war is false. What, in your view, is the truth?

NM: By
September 1962 the Indian "forward policy" of trying to force the
Chinese out of territory India claimed had built up great tension in the
Western (Ladakh) sector of the border, with the Chinese army just
blocking it. Then the Nehru government applied the forward policy to the
McMahon Line eastern sector and when the Chinese blocked that too India
in effect declared war with Nehru's announcement on October 11 that the
Army had been ordered to "free our territory", which meant to attack
the Chinese and drive them back. As General Niranjan Prasad, commander
of 4 Division, wrote later: "We at the front knew that since Nehru had
said he was going to attack, the Chinese were certainly not going to
wait to be attacked" — and of course they didn't. That's how the war
began. The Chinese attack was both reactive, in that General Kaul had
begun the Indian assault on October 10, and pre-emptive because after
that failure the Indian drive had been suspended to build up strength
for a resumed attack.Q: What in your opinion were the policies, on both sides, that brought about the basic quarrel over the border?

NM:
As far as the McMahon Line was concerned India inherited the dispute
with China, which the British had created in the mid-1930s by seizing
the Tibetan territory they re-named NEFA. The PRC government was
prepared to accept that border alignment but insisted that it be
re-negotiated, that is put through the usual diplomatic process, to wipe
out its imperialist origins. Nehru refused, using London's false claim
that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line to
back up that refusal — that was his Himalayan blunder. Then in 1954 he
compounded that mistake by laying cartographic claim to a swathe of
territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond
anything the British had ever claimed and on an area which Chinese
governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years. To
make matters worse, he ruled that there should be no negotiation over
that claim either! So Indian policy had created a border dispute and
also ruled out the only way it could peacefully be settled, through
diplomatic negotiation.

Q: Whatever the truth about the
origins of the war, it's the effect on India-China relations and the
deadlock since then that is important now... And there was the worry
that bringing up all the bitterness of that bloody conflict may only
make matters worse?

NM: Certainly
not, the opposite is true I think. If the Henderson Brooks Report is
read closely in India (and it's not easy reading!) people will see that
political favouritism put the Army under incompetent leadership which
blindly followed the Nehru government's provocative policy. It shows
that all the way, from formulation to implementation of the Forward
Policy, that policy was resisted by the pucca soldiers because they saw
it must end in a conflict India could only lose, but the orders came
from the top and in the end had to be obeyed... the authors of the
report ruefully quote the poem, "theirs not to reason why... but to do
or die".

Q: What made you publish the report now, and why were you selective about what you published?

NM: There's
a significant gap in what I published, about 45 pages, otherwise I
published all I have, which is Volume One of the Report's two volumes.
The gap is there only because the time I had to copy it was limited, and
when I saw I wouldn't have time to copy it all I chose to leave out a
chunk in the middle rather than the end of it. As for the timing, I'd
been trying to make it public for years but thought if I did it myself
there'd just be attacks on me rather than concentration on the Report's
contents, and to some extent that what's happening now. So a couple of
years ago I made the text available to several major Indian papers on
condition they didn't disclose their source, but none of them would
publish it, so by this time I had to conclude that if I didn't do it
myself it might never see the light of day. Now it's done without any
harm whatever to national security let's hope the Indian government,
this one or the next, will quickly publish both volumes of the Henderson
Brooks Report without any gaps or editing.

Q: All
right, but don't you see you may have made matters worse by arousing all
this heated discussion just before a general election?

NM:
Honestly, the elections never crossed my mind as bearing on my
decision, I don't follow Indian politics closely nowadays. And as for
making matters worse, absolutely not, I see the opposite as being true.
The tragic irony in all this is that settlement would be easy and the
way to settlement has always been open! All that is required is that the
Indian government, any Indian government, reverses the Nehru refusal to
negotiate. And it's possible that under the guise of just "talking", a
secret process of negotiation has in fact been going on and there are
signs that it may have reached agreement on basics. If so the Indian
public is more likely to welcome that outcome because the myth of
"Chinese aggression" has been exposed again, as the Henderson Brooks
report does. I say "again" because all this, the historical and
diplomatic background and what the Henderson Brooks report tells about
the debacle, was exposed long ago in my 1970 book India's China War, and
a revised edition of that has just come out in Delhi. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-Nehru-who-declared-1962-war-Australian-journalist-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Note: Procedural Establishments Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives protection to a person who is still a Public Servant at the time the prosecution is launched, and also when he is no longer a public servant. This is to protect the Public Servant from a case being filed against him after his retirement. When the government servant or the employee is not removable from his office without the sanction of the Central Government, then the same is necessary. Sanction under this section is not necessary before a Public Servant could be prosecuted for an offence of bribery under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are three facets in the consideration of the protection given by Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to the acts done by public officers. (i) The act complained attaches to it the official character of the person doing it; (ii) The official character or status of the accused gave him an opportunity of doing the…

Press ReleaseQuestionable and illegal UIDAI completes four yearsMaj Gen S.G.Vombatkere, VSM tell President that UID is extra-legal,
unethical, coercive
New Delhi, 28 Jan, 2013: Prime
Minister headed Cabinet Committee on UID related matters (CCUIDRM) which also
deal with National Population Register (NPR) has ensured that Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) continues to complete its four years
of existence without any legal basis and without disclosing that UID database
and NPR database is being merged with the electoral database. UIDAI was created
by a notification of Planning Commission dated January28, 2009.The notification is attached. As of as on
January 2, 2013, Cabinet Committee on
Unique Identification Authority of India related issues includes Prime
Minister, Sharad Pawar, Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food Processing
Industries, P. Chidambaram, Minister of Finance, Sushilkumar Shinde, Minister
of Home Affairs, Mallikarjun Kharge, Minister of Labour and …

At a program to mark the 76th birth anniversary of late Prabhash Joshi, well known columnist and former editor of Nayi Duniya, Jansatta and Indian Express, speaker after speaker demanded the formation of Third Press Commission. The program was organised on July 15 at Satyagrah Mandap, Raj Ghat by Prabhash Parampra Nyas and Gandhi Smriti awam Darshan Samiti.

It has come to light that the efforts of senior journalists like Ram Bahadur Rai, Ram Sharan Joshi and Kuldeep Nayar have been demanding setting up of the Third Press Commission from the Manmohan Singh Govt but due to resistance from the de facto head of the state, it has not been constituted so far.

Press Council of India in its report of 2001 had also recommended setting up of a Third Press Commission during Justice PB Swant's tenure. Justice G.N. Ray, the Press Council chairman also recommended it in his speech in 2009 in Kolkata.

In July 2011, at a function in Indore too, journalists marched in the streets demanding…